R A Hulme J at [1] Garling J at [4] Wilson J at [92]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Conviction for the offence contrary to s 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company is quashed, and a verdict of acquittal on that offence is substituted. (3) The appellant is convicted of the offence contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company. (4) The appellant is sentenced with respect to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company to the following: (a) a non-parole period of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 14 March 2015 and expiring on 13 March 2016; (b) a balance of term of imprisonment of 6 months commencing on 14 March 2016 and expiring on 13 September 2016.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – evidence – verdict unreasonable or unsupportable on evidence – where appellant convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm in company – s 35(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – whether injuries suffered by victim amounted to “grievous bodily harm” – whether Court should enter substituted verdict for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company
WORDS AND PHRASES – “grievous bodily harm”, “actual bodily harm”
R A HULME J: I agree with Garling J that it was not open to the jury in all the circumstances of this case to find beyond reasonable doubt that the injury sustained by the victim amounted to grievous bodily harm. Subject to what follows I agree with his Honour's reasons…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Swan v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Swan v R [2016] NSWCCA 79
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 79
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Swan v R, the appellant was convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on a victim in company. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the evidence did not support a verdict of grievous bodily harm and that the verdict was unreasonable. The legal issues before the court were whether the injuries sustained by the victim qualified as grievous bodily harm under section 35(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and whether the court should enter a substituted verdict for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company.
The High Court examined the definition of grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, considering both statutory language and judicial interpretation. The court assessed the severity of the injuries and whether they met the threshold for grievous bodily harm, which includes significant or serious harm. The court also considered the reasonable application of the evidence presented at trial to determine whether the verdict was supported by the evidence. Ultimately, the court found that the injuries did not amount to grievous bodily harm but rather actual bodily harm. Consequently, the court entered a substituted verdict for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, finding the original conviction and sentence for grievous bodily harm to be unreasonable.